You'll have to enlighten me on LUCA. I've been living under an especially heavy rock over the last 4 months, lol...

The Last Universal cellular ancestor, determined by looking at 'conserved genes', and 'ASSUMING' they relate back to the LUCA genes before the split into eukaryotes (both types) and archaea.

Late to the show as usual...

It is apparent to me that first life forms had most of the genetic mechanisms we see now. How it started that way is totally unknown. My guess is a UI. What is yours?

Do you disagree with my old statement that your thinking highlighted above comes only from studying life as it exists now, and asserting "it must always have been so?" That was one of the only points you ever conceded to me.

What about the recent LUCA suppositions? Cell thought to be quite complex. I'm with you on thinking that earliest cell forms were not as complex as now, but still quite complex; the recent finding of a vacuole in a single-celled organism, as an example.

You'll have to enlighten me on LUCA. I've been living under an especially heavy rock over the last 4 months, lol...

Late to the show as usual...

It is apparent to me that first life forms had most of the genetic mechanisms we see now. How it started that way is totally unknown. My guess is a UI. What is yours?

Do you disagree with my old statement that your thinking highlighted above comes only from studying life as it exists now, and asserting "it must always have been so?" That was one of the only points you ever conceded to me.

What about the recent LUCA suppositions? Cell thought to be quite complex. I'm with you on thinking that earliest cell forms were not as complex as now, but still quite complex; the recent finding of a vacuole in a single-celled organism, as an example.

It is apparent to me that first life forms had most of the genetic mechanisms we see now. How it started that way is totally unknown. My guess is a UI. What is yours?

Do you disagree with my old statement that your thinking highlighted above comes only from studying life as it exists now, and asserting "it must always have been so?" That was one of the only points you ever conceded to me.

Thanks for ignoring the question entirely. Useful that.-The issue at hand from our last entry:-> > Trying to get a better grasp of your positions. I'm going to assume you have either read Dawkins's 'The Selfish Gene' or have access to a library. What is it about the process outlined in the second chapter (The replicators) that you find implausible?
> 
> I've read The God Delusion. Shapiro is bypassing Dawkins, the reason why the Altenberg 16 met two years ago. Neo-Darwinism is on its last legs. To my mind Dawkins is bombastic old hat. Shapiro is the future.-I couldn't be more clear. I haven't read that book or chapter. Summarize it and I'll answer. My previous entry tells you my position from the current science literature. I suggest you become acquainted with it. Remember, I believe in evolution, but the old DArwin explanations and the new ones (which are shoe-horned into the old concepts) are flat out wrong when compared to the current findings.-It is apparent to me that first life forms had most of the genetic mechanisms we see now. How it started that way is totally unknown. My guess is a UI. What is yours?

Trying to get a better grasp of your positions. I'm going to assume you have either read Dawkins's 'The Selfish Gene' or have access to a library. What is it about the process outlined in the second chapter (The replicators) that you find implausible?-I've read The God Delusion. Shapiro is bypassing Dawkins, the reason why the Altenberg 16 met two years ago. Neo-Darwinism is on its last legs. To my mind Dawkins is bombastic old hat. Shapiro is the future.